warmest January on record

[elvis]

Wait a moment yourself, you silly asshole.

You have long posted that there are other factors in warming and cooling the globe.

So we had a strong La Nina, a lack of sunspots, and an solar minimum, all at the same time.

No, the GHGs did not take a vacation at all. In fact, because of the presence of those GHGs, what should have been a trio of very cold years, all ranked in the top ten for the warmest in the last 150 years.

It is more than probable that our grandchildren will look back on the period between 1950 and 2010 as Utopian. And grandly criminal for the world that we will have given them.

Name calling?

Our grandchildren may be traveling back in time to thank us for warming up the world because the interest on the national debt will keep them from buying any kind of fuel to heat their homes.

Most of the decade plateuaed at the warmer temperature instead of increasing. With King CO2 still abundant, and with only the man-made portion which is 3% of the total emitted, being responsible for, what is the current figure, 60% of all warming, somehow, no warming occurred.

This seems to be a violation of the Theory passed down from father to son since 1825, doesn't it?

don't mind rocks. He hasn't seen chris in a few days and so he's sexually frustrated.

 

[code1211]

When the frauds Christy and Spencer jimmied the Troposphere numbers by using the opposite sign to "correct" for diurnal satellite drift, the deniers were claiming UAH satellite Troposphere data was the ONLY accurate data. Now that the correct sign is being used and the satellite data matches exactly the surface data, Troposphere data is suddenly suspect even though there are no heat islands in satellites.

So how do you explain the nearly exact correlation between surface data and satellite data?

Have the satellite numbers currently and in the past been corrected to the point at which you now acknowledge them to be accurate?

Is the absolute correlation between the rises and falls of satellite data and ground station data evidence that the ground stations or the satellites or both are right or wrong?

The surface data and the RSS data have always been correct, as you well know. That is why deniers used the data cooked by deniers Christy and Spencer of UAH data exclusively. Now that Christy and Spencer have acknowledged that their data was erroneous and have corrected their errors, deniers now refuse to accept even UAH data compiled by such renowned deniers.

So tell us why data from the deniers at UAH is no longer the most accurate data on Earth, as deniers claimed when it was cooked, when it shows an overall warming trend??????

I prefer the satelite data from either RSS or UAH over the land station data. The land station data and the old methos of reading the ocean Data were both fraught with inconsistancies and prone to innaccuracies. This man's opinion only.

The satelite data seems to be more consistant in its method and interpretation.

When was the mistake made by the UAH folks? When was it discovered? When was the correction made?

 

[code1211]

Yeah, well tell that to the likes of Ollie et al, who never miss a moment with regard to how cold they are....

Not to be a stick in the mud here, but the level of CO2 is not going down. According to the line of logic on this, the temp should be going up. CO2 is homogenized in the air and it has an effect which is presented as being constant and oppressive.

If it's colder that presentation is wrong.

What else is wrong?

It's not colder GLOBALLY!

So your presentation is wrong.

And it's not as warm as it should be, Globally, if the theory is true.

I don't need to prove anything. It is those who are trying to persuade that need to do this.

If we continue to warm at the rate we've enjoyed since before the Industrial Revolution, that is natural. If it cools despite the consistant rise of CO2, that is natural. If it warms more quickly and never cools and does so in perfect unison with CO2, that would be unnatural.

So far, we are seeing what seems to be natural responses to natural causes.

 

[Intense]

I think the words of the day are Flim-Flam and Scam. Scheme after scheme, the shit just gets deeper. The march, lock step into total control of Our Lives, cradle to grave. With all of the fraudulent and falsified reports, where is Your credibility? CO2, pretty much the bi-product of every living thing, absent of sunlight, now a harmful pollutant in need of Government control and taxation, how convenient. A natural Refrigerant, non toxic and safe, when compared to Freon -12, Freon-22, Freon 134, or some of the nastier stuff around today, is now viewed as lethal to Our environment. How convenient for the Powers and Players of Today. What's next, Nitrogen, Hydrogen, Oxygen, H2O? How easily can anything and everything We have an effect on be taxed, and We Not question the Source or the true motive? I personally thing that for some, the solution is simply that They should Leave Government and find a Job that actually adds to the GNP rather than taking from it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, Code, once more you are trotting out the lie. No, scientists did not predict an ice age in 1975.

Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

"The media had been spreading warnings of a cooling period since the 1950s, but those alarms grew louder in the 1970s. In 1975, cooling went from 'one of the most important problems' to a first-place tie for 'death and misery'. The claims of global catastrophe were remarkably similar to what the media deliver now about global warming." (Fire and Ice).

What the science says...
1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2.


What was the scientific consensus in the 1970s regarding future climate? The most cited example of 1970s cooling predictions is a 1975 Newsweek article "The Cooling World" that suggested cooling "may portend a drastic decline for food production":

"Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend… But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."

A 1974 Times Magazine article Another Ice Age? painted a similarly bleak picture:

"When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."
However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

What are you talking about? I didn't say a thing about an ice age occurring the 1970's... ?

That is correct. Went back and looked, and the link was in the post from Zoom.

And what you referanced from his post was the stratospheric water vapor, which was good information, and, hopefully, a negative feedback that will continue.

My bad, and my apoligies.

 

[edthecynic]

Have the satellite numbers currently and in the past been corrected to the point at which you now acknowledge them to be accurate?

Is the absolute correlation between the rises and falls of satellite data and ground station data evidence that the ground stations or the satellites or both are right or wrong?

The surface data and the RSS data have always been correct, as you well know. That is why deniers used the data cooked by deniers Christy and Spencer of UAH data exclusively. Now that Christy and Spencer have acknowledged that their data was erroneous and have corrected their errors, deniers now refuse to accept even UAH data compiled by such renowned deniers.

So tell us why data from the deniers at UAH is no longer the most accurate data on Earth, as deniers claimed when it was cooked, when it shows an overall warming trend??????

I prefer the satelite data from either RSS or UAH over the land station data. The land station data and the old methos of reading the ocean Data were both fraught with inconsistancies and prone to innaccuracies. This man's opinion only.

The satelite data seems to be more consistant in its method and interpretation.

When was the mistake made by the UAH folks? When was it discovered? When was the correction made?

The satellite data and surface data are almost identical!!!! How can one be accurate and not the other????

Main argument against climate models proven incorrect : Weather Underground

The satellite measurements that were found to be in error were taken beginning in 1978 by Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) operating on NOAA polar-orbiting satellites. According to a description of the MSU data available on the web site where the data is archived:

"The instruments in the MSU series were intended for day to day operational use in weather forecasting and thus are not calibrated to the precision needed for climate studies. A climate quality dataset can be extracted from their measurements only by careful intercalibration of the nine distinct MSU instruments."
​

Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, made a series of efforts to perform the careful intercalibration needed beginning in the 1990s, and for over a decade successfully defended his conclusion that the MSU instruments were showing a much lower level of tropospheric warming than what climate models predicted. Christy was probably the most quoted scientist by the "greenhouse skeptics" during that period, and testified numerous times before Congress about his findings. However, a series of papers published in 2004 and 2005 showed that the satellite intercalibration methods used by Christy were incorrect, and Christy publicly credited the authors of the new studies with finding a real source of error.

 

[code1211]

The surface data and the RSS data have always been correct, as you well know. That is why deniers used the data cooked by deniers Christy and Spencer of UAH data exclusively. Now that Christy and Spencer have acknowledged that their data was erroneous and have corrected their errors, deniers now refuse to accept even UAH data compiled by such renowned deniers.

So tell us why data from the deniers at UAH is no longer the most accurate data on Earth, as deniers claimed when it was cooked, when it shows an overall warming trend??????

I prefer the satelite data from either RSS or UAH over the land station data. The land station data and the old methos of reading the ocean Data were both fraught with inconsistancies and prone to innaccuracies. This man's opinion only.

The satelite data seems to be more consistant in its method and interpretation.

When was the mistake made by the UAH folks? When was it discovered? When was the correction made?

The satellite data and surface data are almost identical!!!! How can one be accurate and not the other????

Main argument against climate models proven incorrect : Weather Underground

The satellite measurements that were found to be in error were taken beginning in 1978 by Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) operating on NOAA polar-orbiting satellites. According to a description of the MSU data available on the web site where the data is archived:

"The instruments in the MSU series were intended for day to day operational use in weather forecasting and thus are not calibrated to the precision needed for climate studies. A climate quality dataset can be extracted from their measurements only by careful intercalibration of the nine distinct MSU instruments."
​

Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, made a series of efforts to perform the careful intercalibration needed beginning in the 1990s, and for over a decade successfully defended his conclusion that the MSU instruments were showing a much lower level of tropospheric warming than what climate models predicted. Christy was probably the most quoted scientist by the "greenhouse skeptics" during that period, and testified numerous times before Congress about his findings. However, a series of papers published in 2004 and 2005 showed that the satellite intercalibration methods used by Christy were incorrect, and Christy publicly credited the authors of the new studies with finding a real source of error.

My problen with the surface data is that the data from each station is adusted and averaged between the two readings for the day, then each station's average is rolled into an average that includes projections for areas in which no stations reside and then the overall average is adjusted again, then posted.

Stations come and go, the construction of the stations and the paint used on the stations changes, the surroundings of various of the stations have affected the local temperature readings and the readings from the analogue thermometers vs. the digital are nessecarily less accurate. A little like a slide rule vs. a digital calculator.

After several years, those results are adjusted again.

If the data is so good and the results of the methodology are so accurate, why are the adjustments needed and why are the adjustments accepted by anyone after years or decades? The obvious answer is that the results are not accurate until they have beeen adjusted and if they need to be adjusted to be accurate, why is the data collected by this method at all?

The Ocean Surface Temps all relied on sailing ships and random temp checks by interested parties until the Argo array was up in 2003. All readings prior to that were garbage in a scientific research methodology sense.

The method od data collection by satellites promotes accurate averages by virtue of the collection method. It just feels like a better way to do it.

And thank you for providing that info on the date of the correction. Christy, by that account, does not seem to be the coniving conspirator that you imply him to be by continuously pointing out the diurnal drift error. It sounds like he has publicly endorsed the dissenter.

 

[edthecynic]

I prefer the satelite data from either RSS or UAH over the land station data. The land station data and the old methos of reading the ocean Data were both fraught with inconsistancies and prone to innaccuracies. This man's opinion only.

The satelite data seems to be more consistant in its method and interpretation.

When was the mistake made by the UAH folks? When was it discovered? When was the correction made?

The satellite data and surface data are almost identical!!!! How can one be accurate and not the other????

Main argument against climate models proven incorrect : Weather Underground

The satellite measurements that were found to be in error were taken beginning in 1978 by Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) operating on NOAA polar-orbiting satellites. According to a description of the MSU data available on the web site where the data is archived:

"The instruments in the MSU series were intended for day to day operational use in weather forecasting and thus are not calibrated to the precision needed for climate studies. A climate quality dataset can be extracted from their measurements only by careful intercalibration of the nine distinct MSU instruments."
​

Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, made a series of efforts to perform the careful intercalibration needed beginning in the 1990s, and for over a decade successfully defended his conclusion that the MSU instruments were showing a much lower level of tropospheric warming than what climate models predicted. Christy was probably the most quoted scientist by the "greenhouse skeptics" during that period, and testified numerous times before Congress about his findings. However, a series of papers published in 2004 and 2005 showed that the satellite intercalibration methods used by Christy were incorrect, and Christy publicly credited the authors of the new studies with finding a real source of error.

My problen with the surface data is that the data from each station is adusted and averaged between the two readings for the day, then each station's average is rolled into an average that includes projections for areas in which no stations reside and then the overall average is adjusted again, then posted.

Stations come and go, the construction of the stations and the paint used on the stations changes, the surroundings of various of the stations have affected the local temperature readings and the readings from the analogue thermometers vs. the digital are nessecarily less accurate. A little like a slide rule vs. a digital calculator.

After several years, those results are adjusted again.

If the data is so good and the results of the methodology are so accurate, why are the adjustments needed and why are the adjustments accepted by anyone after years or decades? The obvious answer is that the results are not accurate until they have beeen adjusted and if they need to be adjusted to be accurate, why is the data collected by this method at all?

The Ocean Surface Temps all relied on sailing ships and random temp checks by interested parties until the Argo array was up in 2003. All readings prior to that were garbage in a scientific research methodology sense.

The method od data collection by satellites promotes accurate averages by virtue of the collection method. It just feels like a better way to do it.

And thank you for providing that info on the date of the correction. Christy, by that account, does not seem to be the coniving conspirator that you imply him to be by continuously pointing out the diurnal drift error. It sounds like he has publicly endorsed the dissenter.

First you deniers complain that as the surroundings of the stations changes the readings change, but when adjustments are made to take the changes in the surroundings into account you whine about that also.

Obviously deniers just want an excuse to reject any data that contradicts their programming. The adjustments for the surface data seem to be pretty good since the surface data matches the satellite data very closely!!!

For years Christy denied that his UAH data was in error when others pointed out that it didn't match the RSS satellite data and the surface data. He made no effort to check and correct his methodology leaving it to others to make the corrections. Only after it was shown that he used THE WRONG SIGN to correct for diurnal drift, among other errors ALL of which just "happened" to make the data colder, (what sign to use is something no "expert" could not know), did he grudgingly admit his errors well after the SECOND paper exposing his errors was published.

All during this time deniers used ONLY the UAH cooked data and rejected the RSS satellite data and the surface data as "cooked."

 

[CurveLight]

I've got about 3 inches of fresh global warming here. and I understand that DC will get about a foot or better. Seems to me this has been a bitterly cold winter. And not just in my general area.

.

Why do dumbasses think global warming means every single place on earth will simultaneously heat up? You shit weeds really embarrass yourselves with these comments.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I've got about 3 inches of fresh global warming here. and I understand that DC will get about a foot or better. Seems to me this has been a bitterly cold winter. And not just in my general area.

.

Why do dumbasses think global warming means every single place on earth will simultaneously heat up? You shit weeds really embarrass yourselves with these comments.

Why hasn't anyone done a side by side experiment in 2 100,000 gallon tanks, one with earth atmosphere and the second where we add 100PPM CO2.

How many Cat 5 hurricanes will the second tank spawn before the warming melts the glass?

 

[CurveLight]

I've got about 3 inches of fresh global warming here. and I understand that DC will get about a foot or better. Seems to me this has been a bitterly cold winter. And not just in my general area.

.

Why do dumbasses think global warming means every single place on earth will simultaneously heat up? You shit weeds really embarrass yourselves with these comments.

Why hasn't anyone done a side by side experiment in 2 100,000 gallon tanks, one with earth atmosphere and the second where we add 100PPM CO2.

How many Cat 5 hurricanes will the second tank spawn before the warming melts the glass?

Have no idea what you said.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

.

Why do dumbasses think global warming means every single place on earth will simultaneously heat up? You shit weeds really embarrass yourselves with these comments.

Why hasn't anyone done a side by side experiment in 2 100,000 gallon tanks, one with earth atmosphere and the second where we add 100PPM CO2.

How many Cat 5 hurricanes will the second tank spawn before the warming melts the glass?

Have no idea what you said.

Let's do an experiment....

with me so far?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Short attention span TV must be on, I lost Curve light

 

[Liability]

Short attention span TV must be on, I lost Curve light

There's no challenge in losing bent tight.

That dope gets lost when a marked trail on a map starts with the phrase, "You are here."

 

[code1211]

I've got about 3 inches of fresh global warming here. and I understand that DC will get about a foot or better. Seems to me this has been a bitterly cold winter. And not just in my general area.

.

Why do dumbasses think global warming means every single place on earth will simultaneously heat up? You shit weeds really embarrass yourselves with these comments.

The theory states that CO2 is the most powerful forcing agent for climate on the planet and that it will overpower all other forcing agents and that reducing the emissions of CO2 by Man will correct the warming that is going on and will return the Planet to the Utopian past.

CO2 is everywhere and is a very well homogenized gas in the atmosphere.

If the presuppositions on the strength of CO2's forcing power are true and the fact that it is homogenized in the air everywhere and that it is increasing, why are some areas cooling while others are warming.

Within a greenhouse, whether in Duluth, Minnesota where I grew up or in Indianapolis, Indiana where I now live, it is warmer inside greenhouses than it is outside greenhouses.

Why does the increased CO2 with the supposed increased Greenhouse Effect not work all the time? Why does cooling occur sometimes relative to year over year comparisons and why does warming occur other times?

Why does not the CO2 work at the same speed and in the same incrementally changing degrees worlwide instead of regionally or locally?

If there are forces, many multiple forces, that are stronger than CO2, then the theory falls apart and the remedies suggested are pointless.

This is why it is important to understand the variables and to construct a theory that accounts for them. Starting out with the conclusion, as the AGW alarmists are doing, and then trying to grasp at straws to inspire action to a world changing solution that has no chance of producing the results they promise in the real world is just plain silly.

 

[edthecynic]

I've got about 3 inches of fresh global warming here. and I understand that DC will get about a foot or better. Seems to me this has been a bitterly cold winter. And not just in my general area.

.

Why do dumbasses think global warming means every single place on earth will simultaneously heat up? You shit weeds really embarrass yourselves with these comments.

The theory states that CO2 is the most powerful forcing agent for climate on the planet and that it will overpower all other forcing agents and that reducing the emissions of CO2 by Man will correct the warming that is going on and will return the Planet to the Utopian past.

CO2 is everywhere and is a very well homogenized gas in the atmosphere.

If the presuppositions on the strength of CO2's forcing power are true and the fact that it is homogenized in the air everywhere and that it is increasing, why are some areas cooling while others are warming.

Within a greenhouse, whether in Duluth, Minnesota where I grew up or in Indianapolis, Indiana where I now live, it is warmer inside greenhouses than it is outside greenhouses.

Why does the increased CO2 with the supposed increased Greenhouse Effect not work all the time? Why does cooling occur sometimes relative to year over year comparisons and why does warming occur other times?

Why does not the CO2 work at the same speed and in the same incrementally changing degrees worlwide instead of regionally or locally?

If there are forces, many multiple forces, that are stronger than CO2, then the theory falls apart and the remedies suggested are pointless.

This is why it is important to understand the variables and to construct a theory that accounts for them. Starting out with the conclusion, as the AGW alarmists are doing, and then trying to grasp at straws to inspire action to a world changing solution that has no chance of producing the results they promise in the real world is just plain silly.

It DOES work all the time! One of the mantras of the deniers is that climate changes in CYCLES naturally all the time. Warming cycles are followed by COOLING cycles.
AWG proponents say the warming cycles will be accelerated and the cooling cycles will be reduced. It has been observed that for the last 100 years the warm cycles have NOT been followed by comparable cooling cycles. The warming cycles are followed by flat cycles so that each new warming cycle begins about where the previous warming cycle ended.

If greenhouse gasses are not affecting the natural cycles, why haven't we returned to the lows of the early 1900s each cooling cycle????

 

[code1211]

.

Why do dumbasses think global warming means every single place on earth will simultaneously heat up? You shit weeds really embarrass yourselves with these comments.

The theory states that CO2 is the most powerful forcing agent for climate on the planet and that it will overpower all other forcing agents and that reducing the emissions of CO2 by Man will correct the warming that is going on and will return the Planet to the Utopian past.

CO2 is everywhere and is a very well homogenized gas in the atmosphere.

If the presuppositions on the strength of CO2's forcing power are true and the fact that it is homogenized in the air everywhere and that it is increasing, why are some areas cooling while others are warming.

Within a greenhouse, whether in Duluth, Minnesota where I grew up or in Indianapolis, Indiana where I now live, it is warmer inside greenhouses than it is outside greenhouses.

Why does the increased CO2 with the supposed increased Greenhouse Effect not work all the time? Why does cooling occur sometimes relative to year over year comparisons and why does warming occur other times?

Why does not the CO2 work at the same speed and in the same incrementally changing degrees worlwide instead of regionally or locally?

If there are forces, many multiple forces, that are stronger than CO2, then the theory falls apart and the remedies suggested are pointless.

This is why it is important to understand the variables and to construct a theory that accounts for them. Starting out with the conclusion, as the AGW alarmists are doing, and then trying to grasp at straws to inspire action to a world changing solution that has no chance of producing the results they promise in the real world is just plain silly.

It DOES work all the time! One of the mantras of the deniers is that climate changes in CYCLES naturally all the time. Warming cycles are followed by COOLING cycles.
AWG proponents say the warming cycles will be accelerated and the cooling cycles will be reduced. It has been observed that for the last 100 years the warm cycles have NOT been followed by comparable cooling cycles. The warming cycles are followed by flat cycles so that each new warming cycle begins about where the previous warming cycle ended.

If greenhouse gasses are not affecting the natural cycles, why haven't we returned to the lows of the early 1900s each cooling cycle????

Actually, the warming trend we are experiencing right now started before the industrial Revolution. Prior to that, there was a general cooling known as the little ice Age. The warming started and the industrial Revolution followed.

Many experts believe that the Cooling period, which marked the end of a previous warming trend, was caused by the reduction of Total Solar Irradience evidenced by the nearly nonexistant occurrance of Sun Spots during that period.

The awakening of the Suns activity and with it the count of Sun spots seems to mark the end of the cooling period.

The rise of TSI, which seems to have started between 1600 and 1700 continued until the late 1970's with another more brief reduction which started right before the start of the 20th Century. This is the low temperature period at the start of the 1900's to which you refer. We don't return to those levels because the TSI started to rise again at that time. In the late 1970's, the TSI's rise, which had been quite consitant with the temperature rises and falls, plateuaed at the historic high and stayed there backing off again about 5 years ago.

I find it interesting that when the measure of TSI was measured on the ground, it mirrored the change in climate quite closely. At the same time that the measure changed from ground based to satelites in orbit, this correlation ended.

The Sun's active periods are measurable and seem to move in 11 year cycles, give or take. So does our climate.

Our climate can seemingly be pegged to rise and fall based on the rising and falling activity of the Sun and our proximity to it. Another view is that we can find some rationale in producing a cause/effect relationship of constantly increasing CO2 levels to variably increasing temperatures.

One is pretty straight forward and the other is convuluted. Did you know that in the time of Galileo, the Church proved mathematically that the Sun and all of the planets orbited the Earth? It wasn't all that straight forward, but it was done.

 

[edthecynic]

The theory states that CO2 is the most powerful forcing agent for climate on the planet and that it will overpower all other forcing agents and that reducing the emissions of CO2 by Man will correct the warming that is going on and will return the Planet to the Utopian past.

CO2 is everywhere and is a very well homogenized gas in the atmosphere.

If the presuppositions on the strength of CO2's forcing power are true and the fact that it is homogenized in the air everywhere and that it is increasing, why are some areas cooling while others are warming.

Within a greenhouse, whether in Duluth, Minnesota where I grew up or in Indianapolis, Indiana where I now live, it is warmer inside greenhouses than it is outside greenhouses.

Why does the increased CO2 with the supposed increased Greenhouse Effect not work all the time? Why does cooling occur sometimes relative to year over year comparisons and why does warming occur other times?

Why does not the CO2 work at the same speed and in the same incrementally changing degrees worlwide instead of regionally or locally?

If there are forces, many multiple forces, that are stronger than CO2, then the theory falls apart and the remedies suggested are pointless.

This is why it is important to understand the variables and to construct a theory that accounts for them. Starting out with the conclusion, as the AGW alarmists are doing, and then trying to grasp at straws to inspire action to a world changing solution that has no chance of producing the results they promise in the real world is just plain silly.

It DOES work all the time! One of the mantras of the deniers is that climate changes in CYCLES naturally all the time. Warming cycles are followed by COOLING cycles.
AWG proponents say the warming cycles will be accelerated and the cooling cycles will be reduced. It has been observed that for the last 100 years the warm cycles have NOT been followed by comparable cooling cycles. The warming cycles are followed by flat cycles so that each new warming cycle begins about where the previous warming cycle ended.

If greenhouse gasses are not affecting the natural cycles, why haven't we returned to the lows of the early 1900s each cooling cycle????

Actually, the warming trend we are experiencing right now started before the industrial Revolution. Prior to that, there was a general cooling known as the little ice Age. The warming started and the industrial Revolution followed.

Many experts believe that the Cooling period, which marked the end of a previous warming trend, was caused by the reduction of Total Solar Irradience evidenced by the nearly nonexistant occurrance of Sun Spots during that period.

The awakening of the Suns activity and with it the count of Sun spots seems to mark the end of the cooling period.

The rise of TSI, which seems to have started between 1600 and 1700 continued until the late 1970's with another more brief reduction which started right before the start of the 20th Century. This is the low temperature period at the start of the 1900's to which you refer. We don't return to those levels because the TSI started to rise again at that time. In the late 1970's, the TSI's rise, which had been quite consitant with the temperature rises and falls, plateuaed at the historic high and stayed there backing off again about 5 years ago.

I find it interesting that when the measure of TSI was measured on the ground, it mirrored the change in climate quite closely. At the same time that the measure changed from ground based to satelites in orbit, this correlation ended.

The Sun's active periods are measurable and seem to move in 11 year cycles, give or take. So does our climate.

Our climate can seemingly be pegged to rise and fall based on the rising and falling activity of the Sun and our proximity to it. Another view is that we can find some rationale in producing a cause/effect relationship of constantly increasing CO2 levels to variably increasing temperatures.

One is pretty straight forward and the other is convuluted. Did you know that in the time of Galileo, the Church proved mathematically that the Sun and all of the planets orbited the Earth? It wasn't all that straight forward, but it was done.

Since the ground based temp data matches the satellite data, why would the supposed "correlation" end with the satellite data.
There is no correlation between TSi or sunspots and temp as the charts clearly show.

 

[Meister]

garbage in-garbage out.

Your not going to be changing any minds on this board, Ed. Just like I won't be changing yours.

 

[elvis]

garbage in-garbage out.

Your not going to be changing any minds on this board, Ed. Just like I won't be changing yours.

ed the sicko